If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In a statement released on Thursday, the White House says U.S. intelligence concluded that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent Sarin, against rebel fighters in the last year.

The statement continues:

Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.

The White House reiterates that President Obama has designated the use of chemical weapons as a red line and that the U.S. will increase its assistance to the opposition.

"Our intelligence community now has a high confidence assessment that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale by the Assad regime in Syria. The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has," the statement says.

National Security Council deputy advisor Ben Rhodes said on Thursday that the President Obama reached a decision on what the new support for the Syrian opposition would look like. According to Buzzfeed, Rhodes said: “The president has made a decision ”about what kind of additional support will be provided to the rebels. It will be “direct support to the SMC [Supreme Military Command] that includes military support.” Rhodes added that no decision has been made on the institution of a no-fly zone.

Sort of an interesting point (since both several in Congress and Obama are in favor of aiding the rebels) ... isn't there some kind of law that prohibits arming terrorists? and if the rebels are affiliated with Al-Qaeda doesn't that make them terrorists? Doesn't beheading a teenage boy in public qualify as a form of terrorism?

While some commentators have expressed that Obama should get a Congressional vote on a fly-over in Syria, it seems like there are plenty in Congress (in BOTH parties) who would be eager to grant this permission. After the stink of doing this in Libya without Congressional approval, this would sure be a way for Obama to CYA in Syria. Wouldn't surprise me if he did that. Although, it would appear, that such Congressional approval didn't help Bush much with the Iraq war ...

Also, evidently Egypt has severed diplmomatic relations with Syria? Haven't heard that confirmed yet today. Does that tell us something?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

by JOEL B. POLLAKJun 14, 2013 9:51 AM PTI'm on record in favor of intervening in Syria, in the form of a no-fly zone. (We should have intervened early, if at all.) But I'm against arming the Syrian rebels, who are dominated by radical Islamists and jihadists. In that vein, a friendly reminder to the Obama administration about the federal law about arming terrorist groups:

18 USCS § 2339B Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations (a) Prohibited activities. (1) Unlawful conduct. Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life...

At least one Syrian rebel group, Jabhat al-Nusra, is already designated as a foreign terrorist organization. In addition, many of the rebel fighters are linked to Al-Qaeda, and Sunni clerics are openly calling for "jihad," and rebel groups have been linked to numerous atrocities, as have forces aligned with the odious Assad regime.It is unlikely that weapons sent to the Syrian rebels in general can be restricted from being sent to terrorists. The weapons will go to those who can use them most effectively--or to those who seize them, regardless.If I were the White House counsel, I'd be working late nights trying to figure out how to arm the Syrian rebels without violating federal law. And as an ordinary citizen, I'd sure like to see the resulting legal justification.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

This "no fly zone" nonsense is going to get people killed. It was used successfully in Iraq because there wasn't conflict on the ground. Here, an F-16 is going to overfly the lines and get shot down. How do we prevent that? By shooting or bombing the enemy first in air to ground sorties. I wonder how the folks are going to take us being involved in another shooting war in the Middle East.

There are multiple factions at work in Syria. Some of them are associated with Al-Queada. If we had intervened sooner, they would likely not be there. It is in our interest to make sure that the rebels are more closly allied with us than them.

By your standards the USA was also founded by terrorists. If they are fighting for their freedom and trying to overthrow a dictatorship that is hostile to my country, I say back them.

Syria provided fighters, munitions and sancutary to Iraq during the war. That alone is a good reason to do this thing. If you add in that they are a close ally of Iran and threat to our Isreali allies that is just a bonus.

Syria had chemical weopons before the war.

Control of the skies is standard US doctrine for land combat. Preventing the use of air support from the assad government will take away a signicant advantage from them. It is worth the risk to US personnel. If you look at the number of planes shot down while enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq you will see it is not significant risk.

Considering the limited engagment that we are taking in this operation and considering the risks and rewards, there is no reason not to help these rebels.

Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

There are multiple factions at work in Syria. Some of them are associated with Al-Queada. If we had intervened sooner, they would likely not be there. It is in our interest to make sure that the rebels are more closly allied with us than them.

By your standards the USA was also founded by terrorists. If they are fighting for their freedom and trying to overthrow a dictatorship that is hostile to my country, I say back them.

Syria provided fighters, munitions and sancutary to Iraq during the war. That alone is a good reason to do this thing. If you add in that they are a close ally of Iran and threat to our Isreali allies that is just a bonus.

Syria had chemical weopons before the war.

Control of the skies is standard US doctrine for land combat. Preventing the use of air support from the assad government will take away a signicant advantage from them. It is worth the risk to US personnel. If you look at the number of planes shot down while enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq you will see it is not significant risk.

Considering the limited engagment that we are taking in this operation and considering the risks and rewards, there is no reason not to help these rebels.

This kind of thinking gets us into wars we can't win, puts us even more in debt, and gives us a bad name in the region. This is the first time in a long time I agree(sort of) with Palin.(although Arabic Christians pray to Allah, it's just the name for God). We are arming extremists just like we did in Afghanistan, just like we did in Iraq, and we are trying to choose a government for a people just like we did in Iran.

If anyone looks objectively at our foreign policy in the middle east
, you will see blunders after blunders. Let's try non-intervention

By your standards the USA was also founded by terrorists. If they are fighting for their freedom and trying to overthrow a dictatorship that is hostile to my country, I say back them.

However, it appears that we help overthrow dictatorships that are friendly to our country as well.

If we were truly to be consistent in our support (or lack thereof), we would only back govts that reflect our own core values and do not brutalize their own citizens. It seems the US has always favored "stability" over values in the ME, and elsewhere.

If there was something in the US that actually needed "transforming", it might be that type of foreign policy.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.